What constitutes a dangerous condition for failure to post a stop sign at a busy intersection?

The fact that the stop sign was located 36 feet east of the easterly line of the intersection without any signs warning motorists of the impending stop, either posted or painted on the pavement, constituted a further circumstance supporting the finding of a dangerous condition. It is common knowledge that stop signs are normally placed at the point where vehicles are intended to be stopped. In the present case there was expert testimony by defendant's traffic engineer to that effect. Placing a stop sign in an unanticipated position could constitute a trap for an unwary motorist. Although sections 830.4 and 830.8 of the Government Code, quoted below, ² provide that a public entity may not be held liable for failure to install traffic signs or signals, when it does so in such a manner as to constitute a trap, liability may be imposed for the maintenance of a dangerous condition. (Teall v. City of Cudahy, 60 Cal.2d 431, 434, 34 Cal.Rptr. 869, 386 P.2d 493; Hilts v. County of Solano, 265 Cal.App.2d 161, 174, 71 Cal.Rptr. 275.) Section 830.8 of the Government Code does not exonerate a public entity for failure to post traffic signs where they are necessary to warn motorists of the existence of a dangerous condition. (Hilts v. County of Solano, Supra; see Pfeifer v. County of San Joaquin, 67 Cal.2d 177, 184, 60 Cal.Rptr. 493, 430 P.2d 51.) We conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the find of the existence of a dangerous condition.